Never a more wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy... Should Devs show some love to Corrupted Players?

While we all agree, becoming corrupted is bad. This is still a way of life for some people. I don't think the developers should take away all thier options. If you risk much, there should be a chance for reward.

Perhaps allowing corrupted node development. Not as a main node, but maybe a vassal or secret node that can only go to a certain max level, and maybe only 1 or 2 of them allowed per continent and/or being available on the ocean.

This will give corrupted players a place to go instead of being anathema from any population center in the game. The NPC's in these nodes are of course shady and likely all scum as well, so they wouldn't be giving the best deals to players selling loot. However there could also be a black markets and shady quests in this location too.

The guards here won't attack corrupted players, but would attack any players engaged in a fight (like trying to claim a bounty) against corrupted players.

This place could even sell(not cheaply)/and/or offer quests for special potions/drugs that could temporarily stave off the stat weakening from being corrupted and/or their recipes... it wouldn't prevent the equipment drop on death, but it would temporarily prevent you from becoming to weak to defend yourself or beat up monsters to lower your corruption, etc..

Another potion idea would be one that dampens the mini-map notification for being corrupted. It would still show people there was someone corrupted in the area, just not exactly where they were / who they were.

Maybe even giving Corrupted nodes an advanced Thieves/Assassins guild that isn't available elsewhere.

What do you guys think? Anyone else have any ideas?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Caeryl

Wandering Mist wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

Wandering Mist wrote: »

The way the current system is set up, I doubt there will be many corrupted players at all. In order to become corrupted you have to kill a non-combatant, but there's really no benefit to being a non-combatant over being a combatant due to the death penalties. So if everyone is a combatant, nobody will become corrupted. Maybe I'm missing something here....

Some players won’t fight back on principal.
Some players will take the loss of some resources so they can have an instant port back to a safe-ish area.
Some players will be caught afk and die.
Some groups will have the coordination to 100-0 a player before they can flag.
Some players will let themselves die when they have no resources to lose.

There’s not much incentive to die green, but there are a few reasons someone might.

Even if a player has no interest in doing any PvP whatsoever, they are still better off flagging themselves as a combatant (which you can do manually afaik) because the death penalties are the same for both PvP and PvE deaths. Now, if Intrepid change it so that the death penalties for PvE are different to PvP, then that's a whole different situation. But then again if they do that they are opening up a a huge can of worms when it comes to deciding whether a death was caused by PvP or PvE.

Did you... read what you quoted from me?

Because I clearly stated the game gives no incentive the staying green, but personal motives (or a sufficient skill gap) can be reason enough for someone to be green when they die.

daveywavey

Sathrago wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

I'm green.
Someone attacks me.
I've got about 20 seconds to destroy every resource I have in my inventory before they kill me.
They go red, and get no resources.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

If I can't have them, NO-ONE WILL!!!

Hotfix: You cannot delete items while in combat.

Buh, Buh, But... why would you do that......?!

Wandering Mist

Caeryl wrote: »

Wandering Mist wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

Wandering Mist wrote: »

The way the current system is set up, I doubt there will be many corrupted players at all. In order to become corrupted you have to kill a non-combatant, but there's really no benefit to being a non-combatant over being a combatant due to the death penalties. So if everyone is a combatant, nobody will become corrupted. Maybe I'm missing something here....

Some players won’t fight back on principal.
Some players will take the loss of some resources so they can have an instant port back to a safe-ish area.
Some players will be caught afk and die.
Some groups will have the coordination to 100-0 a player before they can flag.
Some players will let themselves die when they have no resources to lose.

There’s not much incentive to die green, but there are a few reasons someone might.

Even if a player has no interest in doing any PvP whatsoever, they are still better off flagging themselves as a combatant (which you can do manually afaik) because the death penalties are the same for both PvP and PvE deaths. Now, if Intrepid change it so that the death penalties for PvE are different to PvP, then that's a whole different situation. But then again if they do that they are opening up a a huge can of worms when it comes to deciding whether a death was caused by PvP or PvE.

Did you... read what you quoted from me?

Because I clearly stated the game gives no incentive the staying green, but personal motives (or a sufficient skill gap) can be reason enough for someone to be green when they die.

Right, let's go through your list:

Some players won’t fight back on principal.
Even if you have no intention of fighting back you won't benefit from being a non-combatant.

Some players will take the loss of some resources so they can have an instant port back to a safe-ish area.
You still get exp debt, which will be less on a combatant than a non-combatant.

Some players will be caught afk and die.
If you manually flag yourself as a combatant this argument is meaningless.

Some groups will have the coordination to 100-0 a player before they can flag.
Again, if you are always flagged as a combatant, this means nothing.

Some players will let themselves die when they have no resources to lose.
Right but you can let yourself die as a combatant just as easily as a non-combatant. Being a combatant doesn't magically make you harder to kill. Plus it's not just about the resource drop, but the exp debt too.

There’s not much incentive to die green, but there are a few reasons someone might.
Right but in a world where you can manually flag yourself as a combatant, there's no reason why you would ever choose to be a non-combatant.

Percimes

T Elf wrote: »

Corruption is a PUNISHMENT, so no, they are not going to help or reduce penalities; it's meant to be harsh.

There should be an upper limit to the corruption a character can achieve. Past a certain threshold it would be cool if the corrupted character turned into a monster and the player is sent back to the character selection screen. That character slot now showing the monster with a timer. Can't play, or delete, that character until the timer reach zero, and then corruption has to be purge as normal.

Hmm. Bad idea. People would consider this an achievement and try to do it.

Sathrago

Percimes wrote: »

T Elf wrote: »

Corruption is a PUNISHMENT, so no, they are not going to help or reduce penalities; it's meant to be harsh.

There should be an upper limit to the corruption a character can achieve. Past a certain threshold it would be cool if the corrupted character turned into a monster and the player is sent back to the character selection screen. That character slot now showing the monster with a timer. Can't play, or delete, that character until the timer reach zero, and then corruption has to be purge as normal.

Hmm. Bad idea. People would consider this an achievement and try to do it.

The maximum amount of corruption should be the level that gets you killed.

Pannath

Bricktop wrote: »

Corruption exists to prevent PK sprees on lowbies for the most part.

I don't think it's just lowbies. As a few other adamant non pvp'ers have even popped up in this spread, they could be high level characters who just want to mind their own business and don't want to get pvp'd. But as Steven said, just because they're not a pvp'er they could still be an asshole and running their mouth, and someone is gonna punch that mouth.

McShave

Percimes wrote: »

There should be an upper limit to the corruption a character can achieve. Past a certain threshold it would be cool if the corrupted character turned into a monster and the player is sent back to the character selection screen. That character slot now showing the monster with a timer. Can't play, or delete, that character until the timer reach zero, and then corruption has to be purge as normal.

I had an idea a while back where if a player got enough corruption, he would become a world boss that a group of players would have to take down. Like, give him a bunch of health but also give him specific corruption boss abilities that he can only use. And then the bounty hunter perc can be given to people in nearby nodes via quests and they get benefits over the corruption boss.

There are some flaws with this of course, but I would like to see something done with the corruption since it is part of the lore of the world.

daveywavey

McShave wrote: »

I had an idea a while back where if a player got enough corruption, he would become a world boss that a group of players would have to take down. Like, give him a bunch of health but also give him specific corruption boss abilities that he can only use. And then the bounty hunter perc can be given to people in nearby nodes via quests and they get benefits over the corruption boss.

There are some flaws with this of course, but I would like to see something done with the corruption since it is part of the lore of the world.

So, corruption - which they've introduced as a deterrent/punishment for unwanted behaviour - would be rewarded with what is effectively a free Monster Coin, which normally has to be bought from the Cosmetic Shop for real life money?

Can't see it happening.

McShave

daveywavey wrote: »

So, corruption - which they've introduced as a deterrent/punishment for unwanted behaviour - would be rewarded with what is effectively a free Monster Coin, which normally has to be bought from the Cosmetic Shop for real life money?

Can't see it happening.

There are still the same corruption death penalties, dropping gear and resources and you cant do anything while in the corrupted boss mode, like gathering or questing. I do understand that it goes against the whole idea for corruption tho, just a fun idea.

I am wondering how they are gonna fit corruption into the lore of the game. As far as I understand, corruption is the evil of the world, and the evil bad guys of the universe are corruption bosses.

Pannath

I think non-pvpers have been throwing the word punishment around a bit. I don't think corruption is a punishment at all, and even listening to the developers talk about it they don't give off that impression either. It's more like a deterrence to absolute chaos, yet still allowing a means to an end for people to deal with pve'ers who like to run their mouths.

Jahlon

Pannath wrote: »

I think non-pvpers have been throwing the word punishment around a bit. I don't think corruption is a punishment at all, and even listening to the developers talk about it they don't give off that impression either. It's more like a deterrence to absolute chaos, yet still allowing a means to an end for people to deal with pve'ers who like to run their mouths.

Corruption is a punishment...

.... that comes from the developers.

It is specifically designed to stop the world from becoming a gank box, without taking away player agency of being able to kill anyone at any time.

Caeryl

Wandering Mist wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

Wandering Mist wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

Wandering Mist wrote: »

The way the current system is set up, I doubt there will be many corrupted players at all. In order to become corrupted you have to kill a non-combatant, but there's really no benefit to being a non-combatant over being a combatant due to the death penalties. So if everyone is a combatant, nobody will become corrupted. Maybe I'm missing something here....

Some players won’t fight back on principal.
Some players will take the loss of some resources so they can have an instant port back to a safe-ish area.
Some players will be caught afk and die.
Some groups will have the coordination to 100-0 a player before they can flag.
Some players will let themselves die when they have no resources to lose.

There’s not much incentive to die green, but there are a few reasons someone might.

Even if a player has no interest in doing any PvP whatsoever, they are still better off flagging themselves as a combatant (which you can do manually afaik) because the death penalties are the same for both PvP and PvE deaths. Now, if Intrepid change it so that the death penalties for PvE are different to PvP, then that's a whole different situation. But then again if they do that they are opening up a a huge can of worms when it comes to deciding whether a death was caused by PvP or PvE.

Did you... read what you quoted from me?

Because I clearly stated the game gives no incentive the staying green, but personal motives (or a sufficient skill gap) can be reason enough for someone to be green when they die.

Right, let's go through your list:

Some players won’t fight back on principal.
Even if you have no intention of fighting back you won't benefit from being a non-combatant.

Some players will take the loss of some resources so they can have an instant port back to a safe-ish area.
You still get exp debt, which will be less on a combatant than a non-combatant.

Some players will be caught afk and die.
If you manually flag yourself as a combatant this argument is meaningless.

Some groups will have the coordination to 100-0 a player before they can flag.
Again, if you are always flagged as a combatant, this means nothing.

Some players will let themselves die when they have no resources to lose.
Right but you can let yourself die as a combatant just as easily as a non-combatant. Being a combatant doesn't magically make you harder to kill. Plus it's not just about the resource drop, but the exp debt too.

There’s not much incentive to die green, but there are a few reasons someone might.
Right but in a world where you can manually flag yourself as a combatant, there's no reason why you would ever choose to be a non-combatant.

There isn’t any manual combatant flagging, unless you’ve got an announcement from Steven to the contrary.

And again, personal motivations exist outside the scope of the game. Some people, like Dygz will not fight back just because they don’t want to. Spite is a powerful force.

An afk player shouldn’t ever get a free pass on their death penalties.

A team killing someone efficiently enough to prevent them flagging deserves to get the full payout.

Regardless, you said people won’t be dying green enough for corruption to even be a significant aspect of gameplay, which going by Steven’s comments on it (and the feature designed around it), is both factually untrue and contrary to the intent of the developer.

People will die green, they will die green often enough for bounty hunters to be an attractive profession, they will die green often enough for military nodes’ lessened corruption feature to have an impact on local PvP.

They’ll die green because they got one shot by a max level, because they just wanted to give corruption out of spite, because the exp debt is minimal and they just don’t care, because they’re afk and weren’t there to fight back, because they’ve set some weird passivism challenge for themselves, because they wanted to lower their stats for some reason.

The game doesn’t have to incentivize something in order for people to do it.

I don’t make a point to try parkouring to the highest point in any given city because I’m rewarded for it. And even if I fall to my death a few times and eat all the associates penalties, it’s not gonna stop me, because I personally think it’s fun to get to the top of the building and waste my time spamming some emotes up there. Not all actions taken in a game are done because it’s a good idea. Hell, there’s a reason emergent gameplay can be such a hot topic. Just look at Nuzlocke, or ARAM, or speed runs.

Jahlon

There isn’t any manual combatant flagging, unless you’ve got an announcement from Steven to the contrary.

Yes there is

@Caeryl

Caeryl

Jahlon wrote: »

There isn’t any manual combatant flagging, unless you’ve got an announcement from Steven to the contrary.

Yes there is

@/Caeryl

Can you link the source of this, because I have yet to see any evidence of it being a feature for release. It’s existence in Alpha is necessary when the corruption system isn’t implemented, but it’s easy to see how it’d absolutely warp the game for the worse if it ended up in live launch.

Pannath

So do you get corruption just for killing non-combatants? or for attacking them. Because if it's just killing them, what's to stop me from hitting them a few times while they're in a pve fight and walking away to let the monster do the job?

akabear

@Pannath as you explained can likely happen. From my experience of similar mechanics in a different game, the main issue becomes:

a) making sure you can calculate how much to hit without killing the player yourself. Accidently miscalculate and/or a crit attack and it can become your own kill and
b) taking the limited risk of being flagged for a duration after your attack.

From experience, failed more times than succeeding doing this unless training a group of mobs onto a player and stunning them as well.

It's anybody`s guess how the mechanics will play out in AoC, just speculation.

So may end up being applicable here.

Wandering Mist

Caeryl wrote: »

Jahlon wrote: »

There isn’t any manual combatant flagging, unless you’ve got an announcement from Steven to the contrary.

Yes there is

@/Caeryl

Can you link the source of this, because I have yet to see any evidence of it being a feature for release. It’s existence in Alpha is necessary when the corruption system isn’t implemented, but it’s easy to see how it’d absolutely warp the game for the worse if it ended up in live launch.

You have a toggle to say whether your aoe abilities affect other players, which I assume would flag you as a combatant in the process. It would be rather odd if you could have your aoe's affect other players and still be a non-combatant.

Atama

Pannath wrote: »

So do you get corruption just for killing non-combatants? or for attacking them. Because if it's just killing them, what's to stop me from hitting them a few times while they're in a pve fight and walking away to let the monster do the job?

It's a gamble whether the blow you do actually is the killing blow. You may accidentally kill them, and now you have corruption.

Also, if you don't kill them, then you don't get to loot them when they die, so what is the point of attacking them?

But anyway, the whole point of this thread is based on a misconception. Corruption is 100% bad, there is nothing good about it and there is not supposed to be anything good about it. If you don't like the term punishment, then instead think of it as the trade-off, the negative consequence you choose to take on in order to be able to kill people not flagged for PvP.

If you smash your hand with a hammer, the pain isn't punishment. Nobody is inflicting it on you except yourself. It's just the negative consequence of your actions.

The developers have no interest in giving support to players with corruption, or giving it any sort of upside at all. If they did that, it would no longer have any meaning, it would lose its entire purpose. And that purpose is to be the bad result of engaging in non-consensual PvP.

ETA: I should mention that there is one actual tangible benefit to behavior that results in corruption. If you kill someone who is green, they suffer double the usual death penalty. That means they take on double the XP debt, but it also means they drop double the resources. Resources that go to you as loot. So in theory, I suppose that could be an incentive to engage in that behavior; you might end up profiting from it. It will remain to be seen if that profit comes anywhere close to justifying taking on corruption. We haven't had a chance to actually test anything yet, so we have to wait to find out.

akabear

With the amount of quoting, miss quoting, re-quoting, misinterpreting, sides taken, counter-arguments, contradicting and polar opposite views; I think we have just the right ingredients for some awesome pvp & politics carried from the forums to the game! Nothing like a bit of passion in-game... Keep it up!

FuryBladeborne

Caeryl wrote: »

Jahlon wrote: »

There isn’t any manual combatant flagging, unless you’ve got an announcement from Steven to the contrary.

Yes there is

@/Caeryl

Can you link the source of this, because I have yet to see any evidence of it being a feature for release. It’s existence in Alpha is necessary when the corruption system isn’t implemented, but it’s easy to see how it’d absolutely warp the game for the worse if it ended up in live launch.

You can opt into PvP with combatants via a checkbox. If you want a purple name all the time, I am not sure that will happen.

"Players will be able to opt-in (via a checkbox) to allow their beneficial or non-beneficial AoEs to hit flagged players."

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_flagging

Child Item